Fundies Will Be Shitting Bricks

[Zen Badger]

Secular scientists start with the premise that the Bible is false, and bend the evidence to fit that premise. So maybe they are not real scientists either?
Creation Scientists conduct their operational sciences exactly the same way as the secular guys do. They only differ in Origins Sciences.

No, they just realize that since there is no supporting evidence for the bible using it for the basis of any experiment would be a waste of time.

---

I guess I can just go to Albert, since it is his theory we are talking about. When Einstein discusses whether a person can prove that light moves at a constant speed in one direction he concedes this is impossible without already assuming it does,
“If only I knew that the light by means of which the observer at M perceives the lightning flashes travels along the length A → M with the same velocity as along the length B → M. But an examination would only be possible if we already had at our disposal the means of measuring time. It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle. (Einstein 1961, pp. 22–23).”
Einstein also confirms my original assertions that the one way speed of light being constant is by no means a requirement of nature, but rather a man-made convention. He states,
“That light requires the same time to traverse the path A → M as for the path B → M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity (Einstein 1961, p. 23) “
So you wasted all that time arguing points that Einstein himself didn’t even agree with. This is why I asserted that if you had a basic knowledge of physics and relativity, you would not have wasted all that time arguing these points.

---

But Einstein went with Occams razor and concluded that isotropic light propagation was the logical answer in the absence of a viable mechanism for ASC.

Any others?

False analogy. We can observe how stars react; we cannot observe abiogenesis occurring 3.5 million years ago. Secularists such as you are the ones asserting that abiogenesis happened, so the burden of proof is not on me but rather you to prove it did happen. Unfortunately for your side, nobody has even demonstrated that it could happen, much less that it actually did.

You've jumped on the wrong boat, you have constantly maintained that since we are not able to reproduce Abiogenesis in the lab it is therfore false.

My argument is that just because we haven't been able to reproduce it yet doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

First of all, you should not be so confident that this cause happened 13-14 billion years ago, since that is a figure that changes yearly it seems. Secondly, you could not make such a definitive assertion without you yourself being all knowing. When you actually start running through the necessary attributes of this first intelligent cause it starts sounding more and more like the God of the Bible.

But you're absolutely confident that the bible is true. Gee, you must be ALL knowing.

You really are the off topic king though Zen : - ) I think that only you could cover the Definition of Science, ASC, and the Causality Argument all in a thread about abiogenesis. Kudos for that.

As opposed to being the deflection king?